Fulltext Search

Insolvency intersected with the UK government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic in an application to the High Court by the administrators of restaurant chain Carluccio’s. Considering the government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (the “Scheme”), the court held that:

As COVID-19 continues to cause widespread economic disruption, the UK government has announced lending measures to support struggling businesses. This alert summarises:

  • the measures available;
  • key legal considerations for directors hoping to take advantage of new debt; and
  • practical steps directors can take to protect themselves from personal liability.

This alert is relevant to directors of disrupted, stressed, and distressed companies who are considering additional borrowing.

What has the government announced?

Case: Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) [2018] EWHC 1980 (Ch), Hildyard J (27 July 2018)

The High Court decision in Burnden Holdings clarifies the law on retrospective attacks on the declaration of dividends.

SUMMARY

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

SUMMARY

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“CA”) made a significant ruling on two matters affecting the powers and duties of directors of English companies.